Magico S5 vs Tannoy Westminster Royal SE

Listen to them and then, if you are still not sure, go read JA review of the Churchill...

The S5 are the lowest distortion loudspeakers ever measured by the NRC. In terms of any realistic measures, there is no question that the S5 is a superior speaker then any Tannoy.
I bet you that Kiddman never really heard a Magico. And if he did, there were plenty distortion in that “setup” for sure, they were just not in the speakers (-; Kiddman has been trolling the Magico threads for some time, spreading the hate, I wouldn’t take him too seriously.

>> Tannoy literature clearly states that the design goal is for a rigid, inert cabinet construction..

Well,it does not look like they have managed to achieve this goal...

Aren’t you the guy from audio shark who keeps changing speakers like I change socks? So you discover the high-efficacy, SET world? It has been around for some time you know, and yes, it has its charm and can work well as an office system. You are listening to a setup that has about 50% less resolution then the S5 and you call it more musical?
What is next Bose 901? I give you 3 months with these, keep us posted (-;

Like I said, I give him 3 months, maybe less…

Isn't that the best way to really know if something works or not?

No it is not the best way. One does not have to jump from the roof to know it will be a painful landing. Regardless, it is perfectly fine to do what you are doing, but once you report on it in public, and make judgements, we reserved the right to tell you what we think. I am SUPER relax, BTW.

Look, these are two entirely different speakers. I prefer the Tannoy - but that means Jack Shite

It means Jack Shite because you have no empirical data to support why you prefer it.
Why would anyone prefer a higher THD, trainwrack frq and power response, lack of extension, bloated bass loudspeakers to one that is the exact opposite?
It will be very difficult to explain why would anyone prefer an inferior speaker, but that is hi-fi for you.

Forget measurements - you hear music - not measurements

Sorry mate, but you lost me there.
You do understand the difference between listening to “music” and listening to “music reproduction”, right? If you do, you then must agree with me that what will determine how “real” and enjoyable our experience will be is how accurate the system that reproduce it. It is very simple you know. If we can’t agree on that, I don’t see the point of any further discussion.

You can like what you (think) you like, but it has already been proven that in a control environment, tested blind, most people prefer a better engineered loudspeaker (see Floyd Toole work). The reason audio is a “subjective” experience has nothing to do with sound and a lot to do with Psychology (see the example of the Subaru vs. Porsche).

A QTC of .5 is the most accurate...

QTC is not a scale for determining how good a speaker is, it is simply an indicator of how the speaker behaves at its resonant frequency. A 0.5 QTC is not more or less “accurate” then a QTC of 0.6 or 0.7 (In general high quality accurate audio loudspeakers Qtc are around 0.707). Frankly, your arguments are senseless. You don’t really know what you are talking about, although you think you do, and if, according to you and Charles, it is all subjective anyway, why bother to have a discussion. If you wish to drive your Subaru, and convince yourself that it is better than Porsche, it is fine by me but it still does not change the fact that in reality it is not. And yes, there is such a place call reality.

People here are mature adults and can accept contrary points of view, that's simply life

I must have missed something, but what king of “views” are we talking about? I “like/dislike” is a view more suitable to a 5 year old.

Sorry if I offended you (or made you sad), but I get ticked off when people insist of displaying ill-informed ideas over and over again. This is not about Magico, it is about making well informed choices and sharing real useful information with others, not just feeling. But I guess this is too much to ask for...

Guys, please take it easy. Although I agree with Melbguy1; Charles1dad passive-aggressive style is irritating, there is no need for any “reporting”.
I stated my views, unfortunately no one seems to bother to take the time to read them. It is easy to take cover under the ignorance shield of “subjectivity”.
Audio reproduction is not as subjective as so many of you think. If you bother to study a bit about it and about the way the gear you spend so much money on tackle the issue, you will become a much better “listener”, and perhaps have some advice worth giving.

A QTC of .5 is called transient perfect for a reason - it reproduces transients (ie with the least amount of ringing) the best of any alignment. It is the most accurate - but most people do not like it - it sounds a bit lean and thin. Higher QTC's are not as accurate - ringing more - but sound more real to most people. There is a brain interpreting this stuff - and that is precisely what you are ignoring.

No, I am not ignoring anything, I am explaining, if you care to listen.

All things being equal, a Q of 0.5 (0.577) will start rolling off sooner than a Q of 0.707 (which will give you flat, most extended frq response). So although you will have better performance in the time domain with 0.5, you will not in the frequency domain. That is the reason, that for a sealed box, people prefer the sound of a Q 0.707 alignment, it simply goes lower play louder and interact with the room better. These are all complex problems, that unfortunately can’t be simplified to the level you are trying to portray here. I am glad you have Dickenson’s book, it is a good start (-;